Skip to comments.
Denver company's tests on wine triggers lawsuit (Arsenic in CA wines)
Denver Business Journal ^
| March 19, 2015
| Staff, DBJ
Posted on 03/19/2015 9:18:05 AM PDT by CedarDave
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Saw this report on CBS News this morning. Bottom line - the wines tested exceed the federal drinking water limit for arsenic which is 10 parts per billion (10 micrograms per liter). This is just twice the drinking water standard for benzene (5 ppb) a known carcinogen in gasoline.
Now the facts -
*Arsenic is a micro-nutrient which in organic form is present in many foods. The inorganic form found in drinking water becomes toxic (like many metals) at high doses. The article and CBS report didn't indicate what form the arsenic in wine took.
*The drinking water standard was lowered from 50 ppb to 10 ppb following much debate from 2001 to 2005. Many small water systems, including those in NM where groundwater is pumped from volcanic source rocks, have naturally occurring levels between 10 and 50 ppb. The increased cost of treatment to remove arsenic was a big factor in the delay.
*The arsenic standard in water is based on an adult person weighing 70 kg (154 lbs) drinking two (2) liters of water every day for their lifetime.
*Drinking two liters of wine every day with or without a level of arsenic between 10 and 50 ppb will cause much greater health effects than caused by arsenic alone.
*The California lawyers who are suing the wine industry have interests other than wine drinkers in the forefront. Anyone guess what those might be?
Lawsuit claims high levels of arsenic in popular wines
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring
1
posted on
03/19/2015 9:18:05 AM PDT
by
CedarDave
To: CedarDave
some wines have as much as time times the maximum level of arsenic That much?!? We're doomed!
2
posted on
03/19/2015 9:21:21 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Google "tiny kitten pictures," and put down the gun.)
To: CedarDave
First sentence in second paragraph should read:
CBS News reports laboratory testing by Denver's BeverageGrades found some wines have as much as four and five times the maximum level of arsenic the Environmental Protection Agency allows for drinking water.
3
posted on
03/19/2015 9:23:23 AM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 - If you have a 22-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good.)
To: CedarDave
The Managerial State (your California lawyers in this story are members of the Managerial State) see a new revenue source, because levels of wine-drinking in older generations have gone up.
Better start making your own wine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managerial_state
4
posted on
03/19/2015 9:24:31 AM PDT
by
kiryandil
(making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
To: CedarDave
*The California lawyers who are suing the wine industry have interests other than wine drinkers in the forefront. Anyone guess what those might be?
Dave, do have any documentation re who are paying the lawyers?
5
posted on
03/19/2015 9:25:20 AM PDT
by
Grampa Dave
(When will Sisi, Bibi, King Abdullah & ?, take out Isis in our White House, AG Dept, CIA, & State?)
To: CedarDave
I suppose someone needs to point out that wine is not drinking water so if you’re drinking wine in the same amount that most people drink water then, yes, your arsenic exposure could be an issue.
But your alcoholism and liver damage should be a bigger concern.
6
posted on
03/19/2015 9:25:39 AM PDT
by
MeganC
(You can ignore reality, but reality won't ignore you.)
To: CedarDave
Unless you are downing more than ten bottles of wine a day, I doubt there is any cause for alarm.
7
posted on
03/19/2015 9:26:22 AM PDT
by
Boogieman
To: Tax-chick
They later corrected their story to read:
... some wines have as much as five times the maximum level of arsenic ...
My change was from the CBS story.
8
posted on
03/19/2015 9:27:25 AM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 - If you have a 22-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good.)
To: CedarDave
To: CedarDave
10
posted on
03/19/2015 9:28:52 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(Google "tiny kitten pictures," and put down the gun.)
To: CedarDave
A lot of the foods we eat have arsenic in them, at the parts per billion level. Instead of becoming healthier if we banned all that food, we would more likely starve. Unfortunately, people don’t understand the scale of the exposure levels very well, and reporters generally obscure that so it is impossible to make a reasonable judgement.
To: CedarDave
12
posted on
03/19/2015 9:29:58 AM PDT
by
CrazyIvan
(I lost my phased plasma rifle in a tragic hovercraft accident.)
To: kiryandil
Thanks for the excellent link.
13
posted on
03/19/2015 9:33:04 AM PDT
by
Grampa Dave
(When will Sisi, Bibi, King Abdullah & ?, take out Isis in our White House, AG Dept, CIA, & State?)
To: kiryandil
The Managerial State (your California lawyers in this story are members of the Managerial State) see a new revenue source, because levels of wine-drinking in older generations have gone up.Interesting concept that I hadn't heard of before, but it certainly fits here:
[Theorist Samuel T.] Francis argued that this system oversees "the managed destruction of such relationships of civil society as property, patterns of association, education, and employment."
14
posted on
03/19/2015 9:33:14 AM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 - If you have a 22-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good.)
To: Tax-chick
some wines have as much as time times the maximum level of arsenic >> That much?!? We're doomed!
My doctor, Dr. Smith, says we are as doomed as doomed can be.
15
posted on
03/19/2015 9:33:23 AM PDT
by
a fool in paradise
(Shickl-Gruber's Big Lie gave us Hussein's Un-Affordable Care act (HUAC).)
To: Grampa Dave
Dave, do have any documentation re who are paying the lawyers?The CBS interview says the testing lab contacted them. The interview named the lawyer filing the lawsuit but didn't put his name or the law firm on the video.
16
posted on
03/19/2015 9:45:52 AM PDT
by
CedarDave
(Bush vs. Clinton in 2016 - If you have a 22-year old car, the bumper stickers are still good.)
To: CedarDave
Holding wine standards to that of water standards is ridiculous.
If I drank 16 ounces of wine a day, about two big glasses, that is 0.47 liters. Which is less than a fourth of the 2 liters of water on which the water standard is based on.
And CA wine contains 4 times as much arsenic as water?
This lawsuit is dead before it gets to court.
17
posted on
03/19/2015 10:07:35 AM PDT
by
kidd
To: CedarDave
... found some wines have as much as time times..What the hell does that mean?
FMCDH(BITS)
18
posted on
03/19/2015 10:12:32 AM PDT
by
nothingnew
(Hemmer and MacCullum are the worst on FNC)
To: Tax-chick
Effective immediately I’m cutting back to 1 liter per day. :-)
19
posted on
03/19/2015 11:43:02 AM PDT
by
Georgia Girl 2
(The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
To: kidd
You realize you’re paying 50 cents to a dollar more for a dozen eggs because of a California lawsuit like this, don’t you?
20
posted on
03/19/2015 11:50:45 AM PDT
by
kiryandil
(making the jests that some FReepers aren't allowed to...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson